Re: OT: CSCO stock [7:54957]
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yes, we'll need strong business skills and an understanding of the business > applications that ride on the networks and actually make some money. Or > maybe better muscles. I saw on the news that the Pacific Maritime > Association offered the longshoremen a raise for the highest paying job to > $137,000. The longshoremen turned it down. Unbelievable. CL: yeah, but it's outdoor work, and involves heavy lifting. ;-> >Hey, I'm generally > a bleeding liberal, but this port closure thing p!sses me off. > > Priscilla > > nrf wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to be so pessimistic. NRF - got anything to add? > > > > Oh, I got lots to add. But let me try to keep it short by > > couching things > > in the following bullet points: > > > > *If you want money, somebody has to be ultimately paying. > > Money in, money > > out. > > > > Cisco is not a mint. No vendor is a mint. Cisco can only earn > > money > > sustainably if their customers are making money. And not just > > making money, > > but making money by using Cisco gear. You can only get money > > out if there > > is money coming in. Is that really happening? > > > > Let me explain. Let's look at the Internet. Many studies have > > shown a boom > > in Internet usage. A boom in traffic. A boom in users. A boom > > in time > > spent on the Internet. In all categories there is a boom, > > except for the > > one category that matters - a boom in profits. How many > > dotcoms actually > > make money? Few, very few. How many service-providers > > actually make profit > > from providing Internet access? Again, few, very few. If you > > tally the > > aggregate of all the profit and losses derived from Internet > > operations, you > > will see that the Internet has been nothing but a financial > > debacle of the > > first order. A business model where you, as a vendor, are > > making record > > profits while many of your customers are unprofitable is a > > business model > > that is unsustainable. > > > > True, Cisco is not just all about the Internet. So let's look > > at Cisco's > > bread-and-butter - the enterprise customer. Enterprises will > > continue to > > invest in their network only to the degree that it is > > profitable to do so. > > Has Cisco, or any other networking vendor, been able to > > demonstrate a solid > > ROI from upgrading the network?In many cases, no. > > Companies don't just > > build out networks 'for fun', they do so because there is a > > clear business > > reason to do so. What are these reasons? > > > > Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there are no good > > reasons to do > > a network buildout. Indeed there are often many good reasons. > > But my point > > is that we need engineers who are not only technically strong, > > but can also > > articulate a strong business case as to why money should be > > spent. In > > short, we engineers need to know more about the business and > > financial side > > of things. > > > > *How many people really care about the network? > > > > By that, I mean how many regular (non-technical) people really > > care about a > > network at all? Are they going to be dazzled with mentions of > > BGP and VoIP > > and all that crap? Hardly. Regular people care about the > > services that a > > network can provide. It is the services that people are > > willing to pay for, > > not the network itself. But that begs the question - are there > > really all > > these jazzy services out there that regular people are willing > > to pay for? > > Before you answer, you may wish to consider the following > > snippet from the > > Hart-Winston study: > > > > "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to > > subscribe to > > high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of > > appeal," > > said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no > > interest > > regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay > > at most $20 > > per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently > > using the > > Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow > > and > > limited...Findings about consumer interest in subscribing to > > high-speed > > service also apply to those who use it at work, the poll found, > > indicating > > that even those exposed to the service find little reason to > > subscribe at > > home" > > http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html > > > > Then of course there was that incident in Oregon where a whole > > town was > > offered free broadband for a year, and only half the households > > signed up > > (can't find the article unfortunately, but you may wish to talk > > to Steven > > Ridder if you want to see it). The point is, at this time, > > very few regular > > people actually care about the Internet because there are no > > truly > > compelling services out there, and especially not much that
Re: OT: CSCO stock [7:54957]
Yes, we'll need strong business skills and an understanding of the business applications that ride on the networks and actually make some money. Or maybe better muscles. I saw on the news that the Pacific Maritime Association offered the longshoremen a raise for the highest paying job to $137,000. The longshoremen turned it down. Unbelievable. Hey, I'm generally a bleeding liberal, but this port closure thing p!sses me off. Priscilla nrf wrote: > > > > > > Sorry to be so pessimistic. NRF - got anything to add? > > Oh, I got lots to add. But let me try to keep it short by > couching things > in the following bullet points: > > *If you want money, somebody has to be ultimately paying. > Money in, money > out. > > Cisco is not a mint. No vendor is a mint. Cisco can only earn > money > sustainably if their customers are making money. And not just > making money, > but making money by using Cisco gear. You can only get money > out if there > is money coming in. Is that really happening? > > Let me explain. Let's look at the Internet. Many studies have > shown a boom > in Internet usage. A boom in traffic. A boom in users. A boom > in time > spent on the Internet. In all categories there is a boom, > except for the > one category that matters - a boom in profits. How many > dotcoms actually > make money? Few, very few. How many service-providers > actually make profit > from providing Internet access? Again, few, very few. If you > tally the > aggregate of all the profit and losses derived from Internet > operations, you > will see that the Internet has been nothing but a financial > debacle of the > first order. A business model where you, as a vendor, are > making record > profits while many of your customers are unprofitable is a > business model > that is unsustainable. > > True, Cisco is not just all about the Internet. So let's look > at Cisco's > bread-and-butter - the enterprise customer. Enterprises will > continue to > invest in their network only to the degree that it is > profitable to do so. > Has Cisco, or any other networking vendor, been able to > demonstrate a solid > ROI from upgrading the network?In many cases, no. > Companies don't just > build out networks 'for fun', they do so because there is a > clear business > reason to do so. What are these reasons? > > Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there are no good > reasons to do > a network buildout. Indeed there are often many good reasons. > But my point > is that we need engineers who are not only technically strong, > but can also > articulate a strong business case as to why money should be > spent. In > short, we engineers need to know more about the business and > financial side > of things. > > *How many people really care about the network? > > By that, I mean how many regular (non-technical) people really > care about a > network at all? Are they going to be dazzled with mentions of > BGP and VoIP > and all that crap? Hardly. Regular people care about the > services that a > network can provide. It is the services that people are > willing to pay for, > not the network itself. But that begs the question - are there > really all > these jazzy services out there that regular people are willing > to pay for? > Before you answer, you may wish to consider the following > snippet from the > Hart-Winston study: > > "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to > subscribe to > high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of > appeal," > said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no > interest > regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay > at most $20 > per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently > using the > Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow > and > limited...Findings about consumer interest in subscribing to > high-speed > service also apply to those who use it at work, the poll found, > indicating > that even those exposed to the service find little reason to > subscribe at > home" > http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html > > Then of course there was that incident in Oregon where a whole > town was > offered free broadband for a year, and only half the households > signed up > (can't find the article unfortunately, but you may wish to talk > to Steven > Ridder if you want to see it). The point is, at this time, > very few regular > people actually care about the Internet because there are no > truly > compelling services out there, and especially not much that > people are > willing to pay serious money for. > > * Cisco isn't going anywhere. > > All the nasty invective aside, the fact is that Cisco holds > more of a > premier position in the industry than perhaps at any other > time. They got > billions of dollars in the bank, and very importantly, no > debt. The > disaster of the service-provider market was something of a > godsend to Cisco > in th
Re: OT: CSCO stock [7:54957]
> > Sorry to be so pessimistic. NRF - got anything to add? Oh, I got lots to add. But let me try to keep it short by couching things in the following bullet points: *If you want money, somebody has to be ultimately paying. Money in, money out. Cisco is not a mint. No vendor is a mint. Cisco can only earn money sustainably if their customers are making money. And not just making money, but making money by using Cisco gear. You can only get money out if there is money coming in. Is that really happening? Let me explain. Let's look at the Internet. Many studies have shown a boom in Internet usage. A boom in traffic. A boom in users. A boom in time spent on the Internet. In all categories there is a boom, except for the one category that matters - a boom in profits. How many dotcoms actually make money? Few, very few. How many service-providers actually make profit from providing Internet access? Again, few, very few. If you tally the aggregate of all the profit and losses derived from Internet operations, you will see that the Internet has been nothing but a financial debacle of the first order. A business model where you, as a vendor, are making record profits while many of your customers are unprofitable is a business model that is unsustainable. True, Cisco is not just all about the Internet. So let's look at Cisco's bread-and-butter - the enterprise customer. Enterprises will continue to invest in their network only to the degree that it is profitable to do so. Has Cisco, or any other networking vendor, been able to demonstrate a solid ROI from upgrading the network?In many cases, no. Companies don't just build out networks 'for fun', they do so because there is a clear business reason to do so. What are these reasons? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there are no good reasons to do a network buildout. Indeed there are often many good reasons. But my point is that we need engineers who are not only technically strong, but can also articulate a strong business case as to why money should be spent. In short, we engineers need to know more about the business and financial side of things. *How many people really care about the network? By that, I mean how many regular (non-technical) people really care about a network at all? Are they going to be dazzled with mentions of BGP and VoIP and all that crap? Hardly. Regular people care about the services that a network can provide. It is the services that people are willing to pay for, not the network itself. But that begs the question - are there really all these jazzy services out there that regular people are willing to pay for? Before you answer, you may wish to consider the following snippet from the Hart-Winston study: "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to subscribe to high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of appeal," said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no interest regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay at most $20 per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently using the Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow and limited...Findings about consumer interest in subscribing to high-speed service also apply to those who use it at work, the poll found, indicating that even those exposed to the service find little reason to subscribe at home" http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html Then of course there was that incident in Oregon where a whole town was offered free broadband for a year, and only half the households signed up (can't find the article unfortunately, but you may wish to talk to Steven Ridder if you want to see it). The point is, at this time, very few regular people actually care about the Internet because there are no truly compelling services out there, and especially not much that people are willing to pay serious money for. * Cisco isn't going anywhere. All the nasty invective aside, the fact is that Cisco holds more of a premier position in the industry than perhaps at any other time. They got billions of dollars in the bank, and very importantly, no debt. The disaster of the service-provider market was something of a godsend to Cisco in the sense that it has crushed its competitors like Nortel and Lucent. Just a few years ago there was talk of how Cisco was going to have its lunch eaten by those Nor/cent because of their long-standing close relationships with service-providers. You don't hear that kind of talk anymore. The fact is, Cisco has basically been handed another few years for which it can develop a strong service-provider initiative (no, Stratacom didn't really work out, and the GSR is a point product, it's not an initiative). *The best move may be not to play. Cisco and networking in general most likely has its glory days behind it. Things will probably never be as good as they were. Cisco will probably never reach a market cap o
Re: OT: CSCO stock [7:54957]
yes the whole tech industry is suffering. why? maybe because the prices of early 2000 were way too high? Cisco at it's high was trading at somewhere around 200 times earnings. Today it is trading at 37 times earnings. That is still pretty high, given that historically a solid reliable company might be expected to trade at 20 times earnings. Some of this is based on comparative yields for treasuries. One year treasuries are yielding 1.72%. Cisco doesn't pay dividends ( it's a growth stock, you know :-> ) So what are you buying when you buy Cisco stock? The hope that the stock price will grow. Add to that the economic slowdown. Cisco's major customers are cutting back. As are any other equipment manufacturer's customers. There is little prospect for growth. Reality has hit Cisco, not to mention the economy as a whole. What - you thought 200 times earnings was normal? You thought 20% annual growth rates were normal? Not to mention sustainable? The result. Cisco stock is way down, and to be truthful, there is little reason to think it ( or the market in general ) will break out of this malaise any time soon. As long as the Fed continues in it's present course, and refuses to take direct action to increase money supply ( and not just lower the discount rate ) the economy will continue to perform poorly. As for Cisco - there is a LOT of used Cisco gear on the market. Many companies, carriers, providers overbought in 2000 and 2001. They don't really need to buy more. Cisco is fighting hard to convince customers that they need to upgrade. What has YOUR Cisco sales team been telling you lately? To trade out your 2924's for 3550-24's? To trade out your 5xxx'x for 65xx's? To replace your PBX with AVVID? Oh and by the way, to buy all new switched as long as you're at it? Sorry to be so pessimistic. NRF - got anything to add? ""Erick B."" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > As well as plenty of other stocks... > > --- Eric R wrote: > > Just curious if anyone else noticed that Cisco is > > below $10 and Lucent is a > > now penny stock! > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54967&t=54957 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: CSCO stock [7:54957]
As well as plenty of other stocks... --- Eric R wrote: > Just curious if anyone else noticed that Cisco is > below $10 and Lucent is a > now penny stock! __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54959&t=54957 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: CSCO stock [7:54957]
Just curious if anyone else noticed that Cisco is below $10 and Lucent is a now penny stock! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54957&t=54957 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
